Re: Question regarding the 2nd Amendment
Regardless, when you read the sentence, it states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The portion of the sentence which refers to a militia is there to demonstrate why not allowing government to infringe upon our God-given right to keep and bear arms, is so important to maintaining our freedom from oppressive governments and dictators.
Suppose for a moment, that the following sentence was actually the 2nd Amendment with all other Amendments and Articles of the Constitution remaining exactly as they are.
Amendment II. "Three well rounded meals a day being necessary to maintain a balanced diet, the right of the people to eat and keep foodstuffs shall not be infringed.
If Congress or a certain State passed a law limiting the amount of food one could eat, or what type of food one could possess, such a law would be in direct opposition of that 2nd Amendment. It would therby constitute an "infringement" upon that right.
Article VI of the Constitution states clearly that any law (Federal or State) which is "not in pursuance of the Constitution" is forbidden. All Judges are bound by that Article (VI) to find any law "infringing" upon one of the Bill of Rights, to be illegal.
So consider the actual 2nd Amendment. The sentence says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Any law which sets out a stipulation or requirement previous to a citizen keeping or bearing arms, is an infringement on that right. When you read the entire Constitution as a whole, one Article after another, and then the Bill of Rights, one after another, you can see that the Constitution, or "contract" which we agreed to in 1789 states emphatically that no government, federal or state, shall infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Because we need to be both prepared, and capable of, defending ourselves as a whole against an oppressive government.
To think the Founders intended nine Federal Government employees (Supreme Court Justices) to decide if that right can be infringed upon two hundred plus years AFTER writing a contract that says "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is preposterous.
For years, lawyer after lawyer has attempted to make the People believe the Supreme Court (nine lawyers on a government payroll) should be allowed to decide if we are to maintain a right which was (according to our Founders) God-given.
The Supreme Court is not to decide if the Constitution is Constitutional. It is to determine if a law is "in pursuance of" that contractual agreement.
Nowhere does the Constitution of the United States grant government any authority to limit ownership of weapons. In fact, it strictly forbids government from doing so. The portion about a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is there to declare why not restricting ownership of guns, is vitally important to maintaining a free state.
Granted, there are THOUSANDS of illegal, unconstitutional gun laws on the books. But being wrong THOUSANDS of times, doesn't change the fact that our Constitution forbids regulation of firearms by any government agency, in one simple, easy to understand sentence.
'For no better word can be spoken of a man, than that he is careful of his horses"
"The log of a Cowboy" 1908
Last edited by Leander H. McNelley; 09-26-2006 at 03:12 PM..